argument against explosion/implosion of WTC

[sabbat hunter]

many have said that the "power down" a few days before 9/11 gave operatives enough time to plant explosives to cause the WTC to collapse (1,2,7) Or there is the argument that the buildings had explosives added during construction. Below is a snip, link to a very rational and scientific argument against that theory.

in my opinion the biggest mistake the 911 commission report makes is the lack of blame it has on hte * administration and its incompetance.


"The way the building collapsed must have been caused by explosions
One demolition expert on the day of the collapse said it looked like implosion but this is not very strong evidence. Implosion firstly requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all around the building. When and how was this explosive placed in the building without anyone knowing about it. Second, implosion required more than just explosives. Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day to day like WTC was."

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

[dchill]

1. "biggest mistake"

Uh, that was NO mistake. The commission was formed around the idea that the truth would be avoided at all costs, and replaced with unsworn "testimony" and truthiness... and wherever necessary, lies.

[dailykoff]

2. This would make sense if the towers came down neatly,

like WTC7, but they blew steel, concrete, and of course asbestos halfway across Manhattan. It looks like they compensated for the lack of preliminary cuts by increasing the amount of explosives.

Not sure how they got WTC7 to behave so well but it was a much shorter building.

[sabbat hunter]

3. to get that amount of

to get the necessary amount of explosives in and set up would take weeks.

[petgoat]

4. "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives

placed in strategic points," Romero said.

Van Romero is a demolitions expert.

The article then comments: "The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said."

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/romero.html

Tom Eagar's zipper theory was uncritically accepted for three years by the engineering establishment;
its thesis was that the towers were a house of cards that would inevitably be brought down by the
failure of a few truss anchors and supsequent "unzipping" and "pacaking". If this were true, a very
few charges placed at the perimeter columns would be sufficient to bring the towers down.

[greyl]

5. Romero has adjusted his view in the face of evidence:

Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says

http://www.maebrussell.com/Articles%20and%20Notes/WTC%20Explosives.html

If you're goint to quote an expert, you should quote their most educated opinions.

[petgoat]

8. I am fully aware of Romero's "adjustments"

I did not refer to them because they were not germane.

He never retracted his opinion that the collapse looked just like
controlled demolition, and never retracted his opinion that the job
could be done with a relatively small amount of explosives.

That he did retract his opinion that the planes could not have brought
the towers down is irrelevant to the question at hand--would explosive
demolition take a lot of explosives and a lot of preparation?

Romero's take on it was no, and no, and he never retracted either
opinion.

[greyl]

9. You're still misquoting him. He never said

"the planes could not have brought down the towers".

He said "It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that,"
http://www.maebrussell.com/Articles%20and%20Notes/WTC%20Explosives.html


"He never retracted his opinion that the collapse looked just like
controlled demolition"

He never stated that opinion. Romero said "the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures." I agree, when the buildings collapsed due to structural failure, they resembled buildings that collapse due to structural failure caused by controlled demolition.

Furthermore, he is now saying "Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings" and "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail" and "Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above."
http://www.maebrussell.com/Articles%20and%20Notes/WTC%20Explosives.html

[petgoat]

10. I wasn't quoting him at all. I was paraphrasing.

I said Romero said the collapse looked just like a controlled demolition.

In fact Romero said it "resembled" a controlled implosion and stated his opinion that
explosives brought the towers down. So what about my paraphrase was wrong?

I said Romero said the planes could not have brought the towers down.

In fact he said the collapse was "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes
colliding with the structures and "It would be difficult for something from the plane to
trigger an event like that," and that in his opinion explosives brought the towers down.

I suppose I should have said Romero said planes could not have brought the towers down
in the manner in which they fell. Whatever.

Anyway, your point that Romero was converted to the blazing inferno theory is still irrelevant
to the issue of this thread, which is that the idea that prepping the building for explosives
was an impossibly enormous task is wrong.

[mirandapriestly]

11. Let's see now , when did he recant? Oh, yeah...

"Romero said he and another Tech administrator were on a Washington-area subway when an airplane struck the Pentagon. He said he and Denny Peterson, vice president for administration and finance, were en route to an office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research programs at Tech. "

hmm, I'm sure no one influenced his change of mind, don't you agree?

http://emperors-clothes.com/news/albu.htm

[petgoat]

13. no one influenced his change of mind

Quite the contrary. The 911research web site links to a New Mexico
Tech web page noting that Romero was named one of “six lobbyists who
made an impact in 2003” in an article in Influence magazine.

Romero got $56 million worth of appropriations for New Mexico Tech
for the fiscal year. The Chronicle of Higher Education ranked NMT
first in the nation among institutions of higher education that
receive federal earmarks.

http://infohost.nmt.edu/mainpage/news/2003/18dec01.html

Quite a persuasive fellow, that Van Romero is, huh?

[dailykoff]

6. It would take 12.5 hours

for 20 guys to place 500 charges (basically, to tape a package to a column) at half an hour per charge.

p.s. according to USA Today, there were 80 Ace Elevator technicians in the towers on 9/11. None of them were injured, because they all left the premises as soon as the first plane hit, in violation of emergency procedures.

[DemInDistress]

7. CEO of Controlled Demolitions Mark Louizreuz ? said,

give him a team and a week and he could wire those buildings without a problem..Marvin Bush had the bomb sniffing dogs pulled out of the WTC 1 week before 911,hm !! On the North face of WT7 2 seconds before the collapse you could count (I did) 50 small explosions of black smoke, the signature of a controlled demolition.
Massive blasts were recorded on tape coming from the basements of the WTC prior to each collapse. Sorry, I can't accept 19 arabs and fire brought down 3 skyscrapers..


Dem

[frylock]

14. evidently, there were several unscheduled safety drills..

some months before 9/11 pulling workers off of entire floors and causing power outages to security and TV monitoring systems. Also, a heightened security alert had been lifted and bomb-sniffing dogs removed from the towers days before the attack.

A lot of naysayers who like to hang in this forum (for whatever reason) will poo-poo this video, but I always recommend people watch Loose Change. Just watch it, and do some extra research when you have some time.

[Kevin Fenton]

15. Before your edit time runs out...

...you might want to alter "dog-sniffing dogs". Although it is quite a good idea.

[frylock]

16. thanks..

what a maroon. Although I have seen dog-sniffing dogs, that certainly is not germane to the subject!

[rman]

12. "Many of the beams are cut through by about 90%"

And a building prepared for demo in such a way remains standing, in spite of its structure being severely weakened. This confirms the improbability of (especially) WTC7 collapsing due to a few fires.

[theSaiGirl]

17. Watch the videos... controlled demolition of WTC7

One picture is worth a thousand words:

http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html